Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

Received a letter from Gladstones solicitors earlier in regards to a PCN issued at my own parking space (permit had blown off the dash). The ticket was initially issued by SIP Car Parks who are (supposedly) contracted by the landowner, Artisan to provide car park management services in the car park for the flats. I have ignored all correspondence with SIP, and tried to get the landowner to cancel, but they were being ****heads about the whole thing. Looking at the company, Artisan, it looks as if they're as scummy a bunch as SIP are.

I have prepared a response to the letter. I would appreciate any comments/help before I throw it Gladstone's way and hope they decide not to pursue it. Here is the Gladstone letter (link without spaces):

h t t p s:// ib b.co/gJ TN 8k

My response is below. I am trying to go off two main strands here. The first being legal permission to ticket my space (included in my rent), and the second being the validity of the LBCCC in terms of practice direction for pre-action conduct.

*********
Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to you as owner of the vehicle registration number: xxxxx in regards to a parking ticket issued on xxxxxx (PCN No: xxxxxx) from SIP Car Parks Limited.

I am not aware of any reason why this ticket should be issued. [VEHICLE REG] is authorized to park in this space by Artisan (the landowner).

The premise of ticketing a vehicle for not displaying a permit has the sole purpose of deterring people from parking within a space my vehicle is legally permitted to park in; i.e. SIP’s primary function is to monitor illegal car parking. There is a significant legal issue, despite what SIP’s signs in the car park may say, regarding ticketing a car which is permitted to park in this space. The deeds/lease of this property mention nothing about needing to display any sort of permit. This means I or anybody I permit have the right to enjoy this parking space. There is no obligation to display any sort of permit, and certainly no need to pay any sort of parking ‘fine’. The deeds/lease override any contract the management company may have with a parking company – this is known as primacy of contract.

It is the same wardens who regularly patrol the car park. They will already have seen this car parked in this space many times before. This is a deliberate attempt to recoup extra money outside of the legitimate interests of the business. Proof of permission to park and the relevant contracts can be provided upon request.

I refer to Practice Direction for Pre-action conduct paragraphs 3, 13 and 14, and request that “sufficient information” is provided before this can proceed to court.
**
Objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols
3. Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to—

(a) understand each other’s position;
(b) make decisions about how to proceed;
(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;
(d) consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement;
(e) support the efficient management of those proceedings; and
(f) reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.
**
If you are planning on proceeding to the court stage, there is currently a non-compliance with the Practice Direction for Pre-action conduct as there is no mention of the ADR within the letter. In addition, I have not received a letter from SIP that their dispute resolution has ended. They are therefore breaking the law, when considering The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015:

“19(2) Where a trader has exhausted its internal complaint handling procedure when considering a complaint from a consumer relating to a sales contract or a service contract, the trader must inform the consumer, on a durable medium— (a) that the trader cannot settle the complaint with the consumer; (b) of the name and website address of an ADR entity which would be competent to deal with the complaint, should the consumer wish to use alternative dispute resolution; and (c) whether the trader is obliged, or prepared, to submit to an alternative dispute resolution procedure operated by that ADR entity”.

For this matter alone, I plan to refer this matter to Trading Standards.

In order to fully understand your position and to comply with the Pre-action conduct paragraph 3, I expect the following information to be provided if you intend to send through court papers.

1. What are the terms of the contract? (e.g. a copy of the sign)
2. What exactly was the charge for? (your letter before claim is not specific and it needs to be)
3. How was the contract offered and accepted?
4. Is the charge for (a) trespass, (b) breach or a (c) contractual charge.
- If (a) or (b) a breakdown is needed. If (c) a VAT invoice
5. Is keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4 being invoked or am I being pursued as the driver?
6. Are you pursuing me as (a) agent of the landowner, or as (b) principal?
- If (a) then authority from the landowner, (such as a redacted contract) is needed to demonstrate permission to operate on the leasehold space. (Note: if this cannot be demonstrated, it will be assumed SIP will be operating without permission in my space, and I will seek to reclaim my own costs for the collection of my data illegally from the DVLA)
7. Photographs of the vehicle without a permit displayed.

I am requesting SIP’s cooperation with your own legal insight as this will save both parties time, stress and further money. I may have to get legal assistance of my own to ensure I win this case, and I would be looking to recoup all my costs from the other side.

Yours faithfully,
**********

What are people's thoughts? Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated before I send this off.

What are people's thoughts? Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated before I send this off.

”

Glad to see your local Court is probably Manchester, where they understand the PPC scam and have seen off a number of Gladstones claims.

Are you sure your space isn't actually owned by your landlord, and not provided by Artisan at all? Or are you the flat owner (you mention a lease but also mention rent)?

This sounds like the place I helped someone with a claim over, where there are some pay & display bays, and he found out that his own landlord actually owned the allocated bay under a Deed, and it was nothing to do with Artisan H. The case was about this place:

And they won their case, as we invariably do here, an he was awarded £170 in costs. I have his defence still...I wrote it for him off forum. It may help you. The Manchester Judge tore the Claimant's rep a new one, so to speak!

I would like to add that I have received the same letter. The exact same wording also. Mine is for a parking ticket from 01.09.2016.

h t t p s:// ibb.co/bZ W Mm5

See link above without spaces (like your one).

What i would like to know, should i be worried, and should i respond as i have not acknowledged any of the previous chasers from gladstones. It has also been months since i last received any chasers from this company.

Be very grateful for anyones help with this as i am very worried about it.

I would like to add that I have received the same letter. The exact same wording also. Mine is for a parking ticket from 01.09.2016.

h t t p s:// ibb.co/bZ W Mm5

See link above without spaces (like your one).

What i would like to know, should i be worried, and should i respond as i have not acknowledged any of the previous chasers from gladstones. It has also been months since i last received any chasers from this company.

Be very grateful for anyones help with this as i am very worried about it.

That's great news, Coupon-mad. Thanks. It is Albion Works and it is the space which is included as part of my rental agreement and is owned by the landlord.

“

he found out that his own landlord actually owned the allocated bay under a Deed, and it was nothing to do with Artisan H

”

I'm going to call the estate agents who manage my rent first thing in the morning, and see if this is the same for my space.

If this turns out to be the case, would you advise I not bother sending the reply to the LBCCC and hope they send through a court claim? I'm actually really annoyed that SIP could have got my details from the DVLA illegally and I want my costs awarded (hence my day in court)! SIP are the most arrogant bunch of ****s. Nothing would make me happier than strolling out of court with £170 of their money!

I've just sent an email to the neighbour of yours whose case I showed you, to see if he's still around to help advise you with your own defence and how things will go, what to expect.

I would always reply to an LBCCC because it looks reasonable.

You could say you are aware of a case SIP lost at Manchester court about this same site, where the landlord owned the space. Case number C6GF4Z8D, from just a few months ago, and the Defendant - a neighbour of yours - was awarded £170 costs against SIP. Say that you are in touch with the person who wrote that defence and can confirm that this is another owned space, not part of the common areas, so it is nothing to do with Artisan H or SIP, who were in fact trespassing by stepping into the owned parking space and interfering with your vehicle without reasonable cause or lawful excuse.

As such, their proposed claim is wholly vexatious and misconceived and has no merit whatsoever. Indeed this appears to be a case of unwarranted harassment arising from a patently unfair business practice, akin to the situation in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46. A court claim would be an abuse of process and should they proceed, say that you will have no hesitation in seeking punitive costs, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) to deter this Claimant from repeating this conduct yet again, causing severe distress and detriment to the residents at Albion Works.

The tell them to take formal note that their client is expressly forbidden to set foot in that space or 'inspect permits' on any vehicle in it, and if any further PCNs are placed on vehicles in space xx in future (whether the driver chooses to display a permit or not) you will seek an Injunction and will pursue SIP for the costs.

Finally, say that by displaying a permit as a mere courtesy to other site users, to show that the bay is owned and not 'pay and display', the drivers of the cars that use that space have not in any way accepted any relationship or contract with Artisan H or SIP, or any other rogue parking firm. For the avoidance of doubt, any signs about parking are categorically no concern of yours, and only relate to the pay and display bays and common areas and SIP and Gladstones already know that, from the decision in C6GF4Z8D, and have no lawful excuse to repeat the harassment in the hope of extracting money from other residents.

Send a copy to Artisan H as well. You don't have to display a permit in your landlord's owned property. Tell them to get lost!

Thanks. I'll get the reply sent off and let you know what happens. Thanks for dropping him an email, I hope he's still living there and I could perhaps have a chat and pick his brains.

Regardless of this court claim and whether this actually ends up in court, is there the possibility of submitting my own claim with regards to the trespassing, the letters (harassment) and the obtaining of my details illegally? What kind of costs do you think I could potentially recover if I prepared well?

I know, I've just been doing further research about Gladstones and the shared ownership/conflict of interest with the IPC. Disgusting practices and very worrying how they can so easily purchase our data and operate illegally. A change in the law will eventually happen I think but it will take time. Their operations are slick and the directors must be making hundreds of thousands per year I'd imagine.

How likely do you think Gladstones will send through Court papers? I know I read on another thread you said they file court papers to everyone who gets the LBCCC? If they don't file a county court claim, would I still be of the right mind to submit my own claim on Money Claim Online against SIP?

Gladstones have now sent through a county court claim. Link to the image is here (without spaces):

h tt p s://ib b.co/i Fz GY w

Unfortunately I sent the response letter slightly too late after their two week response window to this letter, and they will have received it after the date they filed the court claim. I hope it doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things.

I'm still waiting for the landlord to get back in touch regarding the ownership rights of the space, but I doubt it will be too much longer before I hear back regarding this. The property manager at the estate agents has been on leave and resulted in a few delays. I intend to prepare the defence and counter claim as soon as possible, however I have filed an acknowledgment of service to give me some extra time. The date on the Claim form is 22nd September. I assume this gives me a deadline for the defence and submission of counter claim of the 20th October? (28 days)

I think it will be best if I get the defence prepared within the next week regardless of the landlord's response, just to ensure I'm adequately prepared.

“

If you want help with the defence and counter-claim, post again on here. And find out about the ownership/deed re that bay.

”

Help with the defence and counter claim would be greatly appreciated. Did you say you had prepared the defence for the other resident in Albion Works who got a parking ticket by SIP? Did he say he was going to private message/ email me? I could really do with having a chat with this guy, see if I could pick his brains. I'm also concerned about the witness statement. Will the court tell me when this needs to be submitted?

I'm also concerned about the witness statement. Will the court tell me when this needs to be submitted?

”

The Witness Statement is 20 - 30 weeks away if it ever gets to that. The date by which it needs to be done will be in a Notice of Allocation you will get sometime in February 2018.

Courts are slow, very slow so as to give claimants time to decide if they want to proceed or not. The same will apply to any counterclaim,

Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.

Did you say you had prepared the defence for the other resident in Albion Works who got a parking ticket by SIP? Did he say he was going to private message/ email me? I could really do with having a chat with this guy, see if I could pick his brains.

”

Yes I wrote his defence and he's surely only just back from abroad this weekend. It would be best if you speak to him this week (he says he will) and adapt the defence I gave him because it was specific to Albion Works.

Hi there, I'm coming up to submitting my defence, and I was wondering if you could provide any comments/ways to improve my defence.

I have been in touch with the other guy (CCG___87) who won against SIP in this car park, and he has supplied me with a copy of his defence. I have kept this broadly the same, as I didn't feel any point in changing a winning formula too much. I have added a paragraph which specifically refers to Gladstones losing a case in this same car park, and said that SIP are knowingly operating unlawfully by obtaining my details as they have no right to operate in this space.

I think I'm just going to go with the standard defence, as I don't know if I can handle any more pressure than this at the current moment. This is already playing havoc with my anxiety. Any comments/ thoughts for improvement on the defence would be greatly appreciated. In terms of costs for a defence, would I still be able to specify punitive costs, or would my costs purely have to stick to financial costs (lost earnings etc)?

Here's my defence:

****DEFENCE*****

I am xxxxx of xxxxx, 12 Pollard Street, Manchester, defendant in this matter.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16.7.5 as there is nothing which specifies the terms, nor how they were allegedly breached. Indeed, the PoC are not 'clear and concise' as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

"1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, e.g. 'Money owed £5000’
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant. "

On the 20/09/16 a similar, poorly pleaded parking charge claim from Gladstones was struck out by DJ Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing, due to their particulars being "incoherent", failing to comply with CPR. 16.4, "providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law." Further, on 27/07/16 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that Gladstones' PoC were deficient. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

Little or no regard is paid by parking operators in residential car parks, to existing lease terms or covenants granting residents parking rights. This Claimant has trespassed in my demised space. The demands demonstrate unwarranted harassment and derogation of grant, which I contend is not a matter that English Courts should support.

These incoherent PoC display a want of any cause of action and are indicative of a robo¬claim, which is vexatious, unreasonable and against the public interest. The Claimant's Solicitors are run by the same 'controlling minds' as their Trade Body and notorious IPC `Appeals Service' and are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims with no scrutiny. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley and such a set-up is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges. As such, the Claimant and Gladstones Solicitors do not come to this matter with clean hands and leave recipients of unfair charges with no option other than to pay or face court action.

This claim comes not long after another resident in Albion Works was taken to court by Gladstones for the same issue (being ticketed in the space supplied as part of the tenancy agreement, for not displaying a permit). The defendant was awarded £170 in costs in this case as it was found SIP Car Parks Ltd had no right to operate on the tenants space (as is the same in my case). It appears that SIP Car Parks Ltd are continuing to knowingly operate in a way in which they have no right, trespassing on resident’s parking spaces, and obtaining resident’s details from the DVLA unlawfully. This practice has caused severe distress for myself and many residents in Albion Works.

DEFENCE STATEMENT

I am xxxxxx, Defendant in this matter. It is admitted that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but it is denied that I am liable to the Claimant for any sums at all.

The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

1. At all material times the bay known as 'Space Number x Albion Works' was assigned to xxxxxx (my landlord) under a Deed of Covenant. It is his demised property and at no point has xxxxx [landlord] authorised the Claimant to charge for the Space, the rights to which were granted to me without additional charge, caveat nor any terms & conditions, when renting the flat under my Assured Shorthold Tenancy.

2. This Claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimant's contractual authority to operate there as required by the IPC Code of Practice 'Operational Requirements': 1. 'Establishing Yourself as the 'Creditor'.

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the `Creditor' within the meaning of [the POFA] and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner 's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly... '

3. It is averred that this Claimant has no such contract with xxxxxx, my landlord and the lawful owner of 'Space Number x Albion Works' nor with the resident owner of any other space they may allege this vehicle was parked. This Claimant may argue that they are authorised by 'Artisan H Limited' or by their agents but I will supply a copy of the Deed of Covenant mentioned in my first defence point which proves my landlord owns that Space, as do many of the residents at this site.

4. It is averred that, even if this Claimant is entitled to issue charges in some bays, these areas do not and cannot include any owned residents' spaces, without specific authority being proved to be held, per numbered space, from those individuals.

5. This Claimant's signage on site does not relate to 'Space Number x'. The signage is also ambiguous and altered with stickers added at various times, covering up some bays yet with no evidence of when each space became a 'pay and display bay' or ceased to be such. It is so confusing and difficult for drivers to understand which of the bays they can park in, that I have often found another car parked in my space.

6. At no time was I warned of any 'parking charge' obligations and nor were any terms ‘on signs’ - or otherwise - incorporated into any permit 'contract'. Indeed there were no contractual terms with the permit and I believed this was merely a courtesy to show that residents were not 'pay & display' visitors.
it.

7. I was unaware that the permit had blown off my dashboard and cannot reasonably be assumed to have known that this could present an issue. Nor did I believe that the ambiguous signs could apply to me, since terms cannot be added to an agreement or contract later. As a resident specifically granted the space by the owner, who has primacy of contract, I rely on an unfettered right to park in my demised property.

8. It is averred that these demands are unwarranted harassment and as it seems this Claimant may be an agent of Artisan H Limited, this conduct represents a breach of the well-established principle that a grantor shall not derogate from his grant. Authorities to support my defence include but are not limited to the Appeal case heard at Oxford County Court by Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC, in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GFOA9E. Similar Small Claim decisions in 2016 include Pace v Noor C6GF14F0 and Link Parking v Ms P - C7GF50J7. All three cases were brought by Gladstones for parking operators (including the original Jopson claim) and in these cases it was found that the parking company could not override residents' existing rights by requiring a permit to park and that the signs were of no consequence due to the primacy of contract enjoyed by the Defendants.

9. It is denied that any contravention occurred. It is argued that there is no 'relevant contract' nor 'relevant obligation', being the pre-requisites that must exist for operators seeking keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA).

10. It is denied that the POFA requirement for 'adequate notice' of parking charges exists at this location. Even if a Judge is minded to hold that the mixed signs are capable of communicating a parking charge, it is contended that these signs cannot relate to a resident with pre-existing parking rights, nor to any of the residents' owned spaces.

11. It is denied that the Claimant served the required documents with statutory wording as prescribed under the POFA and as such, there can be no keeper liability in any event.

12. This Claimant has provided no evidence of who parked the car at the material times.

13. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum claimed has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or explained the 'indemnity' or legal costs which appear to have been plucked from thin air and do not appear on the signage. This is an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA specifically disallows. In addition, CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

14. If the driver was considered to infringe on this land, then only the Landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. Such a matter would be limited to the Landowner claiming a nominal sum, yet 'Space x' is owned by xxxx [landlord] and granted to me. Any other space alleged to have been used has never been identified by this Claimant.

15. This car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and findings in ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case). This location at Albion Works is not a retail site, there is/was no agreed contract between Defendant and Claimant, there is no identified driver and nor are there any comparable 'legitimate interests' nor complex contractual arrangements to disengage the penalty rule. It is averred that these charges are unrecoverable, given the facts of this case.
The facts stated in this defence are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

*****
Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. Do I have to submit a schedule of costs along with the defence or would I do that when I submit the witness statement?

Suggest it is unwise to have your full address posted on a public forum.

”

12 Pollard Street is the address for the entire Albion Works development (300+flats), which this case is specific to.

“

The schedule of costs comes later when actually allocated to your local court.
You can file and serve costs up until 24 hours before your hearing.

”

Thanks. Do you think I can claim for punitive costs, as the last person from Albion Works who ended up in court was awarded £170 in costs. They are clearly and knowingly now operating outside of the law surely aren't they? I would imagine knowingly trespassing in my space and then accessing my details from the DVLA in breach of the KADOE contract is a criminal offence isn't it?

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.